Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Jaya Guruwara And Ors. on 5 December, 2017
$~R-640
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 05th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1146/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar,
Advocate
versus
JAYA GURUWARA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Girish Guruwara, aged 22 years, a bachelor, student of the
fourth year of the course leading to the degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Computer Science, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 12.12.2009 due to negligent
driving of a motor vehicle described as one bearing registration
no.MP-41H-0149 and died in the consequence. On the accident claim
case (MACP no.251/2010), instituted on 24.05.2010 by his parents,
first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants), the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment
dated 21.08.2012 awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.19,04,500/-
fastening the liability to pay on the appellant (insurer), it admittedly
having issued an insurance policy covering third party risk for the
period in question in respect of the offending vehicle. The amount of
compensation awarded includes Rs.18,64,500/- towards loss of
dependency, Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for
loss to estate besides Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses.
2. The insurer filed the present appeal and presses it to question
the calculation of loss of dependency and the non-pecuniary damages
awarded. It submits that the conclusion reached by the tribunal that
the deceased was earning Rs.2,40,000/- p.a. is unfounded.
3. The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars', to come up on its
own turn, by order dated 11.02.2016. When it is taken up in its own
turn, there is no appearance for the claimants. The learned counsel for
the insurer has been heard and with his assistance, the record perused.
4. The claimants had examined Naresh Kalani (PW-2) of M/s.
N.K. Engineering Works to prove that an offer of appointment in
future (Ex. PW1/16) had been issued to the deceased. It is, however,
noted that when cross-examined, the witness conceded that there was
nothing on record to show that he was the proprietor of the said entity,
he having got no record showing even its existence. The claimants
made no effort thereafter to affirm the necessary facts. Even if the
document (Ex. PW1/16) in question is to be taken on its face value, it
was merely an offer of appointment in future. The deceased was still a
student and had not yet attained the necessary qualification on the
basis of which he would eventually be employed. In these
circumstances, the assumption of income on such basis is incorrect.
5. In the facts and circumstances, this court is left with no option
but to proceed on the basis of notional income which in the present
case may be taken as the minimum wages payable to a graduate
(Rs.4,713/-) during the relevant period as the benchmark.
6. It is noted that the tribunal fell into error by adopting the
multiplier of 11 according to the age of the claimant mother.
Following the rulings of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. and the ruling in Sarla
Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC
121, the multiplier has to be chosen as per the age of the deceased and
thus should be 18. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), the element of
future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 40% would also
have to be factored in. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated
as [Rs.4,713/- x 140/100 / 2 x 12 x 18] Rs.7,12,605.60, rounded off to
Rs.7,13,000/-.
7. In view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/-
each is added towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the
total compensation in the case comes to [Rs.7,13,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
+ Rs.15,000/-] Rs.7,43,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh and forty three
thousand only).
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]
10. By order dated 02.11.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit 60% of the awarded amount with proportionate
interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and by order dated
04.04.2013, some amount was released to the claimants. The balance
lying in deposit would be refunded to the insurance company. If
excess has been paid, the insurance company will have the liberty to
take out appropriate proceedings for its recovery. Conversely, if there
is any deficiency in the payment, the insurer will make requisite
deposit with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be
released to the claimants.
11. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2017
yg
